421–430 of 527 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it does not. He has a license for that media.
the key word here is "Media": The licensing terms for every medium that you purchase are different. You may own the CD and not have "download rights". In any case, this is the line from the RIAA. They don't want you to copy, download or do anything that causes them a perceived loss of a sale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm hopelessly biased here, because I make video games. But do you not feel that the world would be worse off--culturally and technologically--without a commercial video games industry? And do you not think that the utility of games--faster and more ubiquitous computers--is self-evident when you compare it to a world without a commercial video games industry, but extremely difficult or impossible to anticipate in adv…
MMORPGS, or any game where the community counts, don't need copyright to be profitable.
This is more-or-less an impossible problem to solve technologically at the moment: MMO servers are (by definition) too contended to do more than act as more than glorified packet switches for authoritative clients. The only lever to pull is to put more functionality on the server and off the client, but for a variety of reasons this leads to a less satisfactory user experience.
[0] http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/06/07/the-lawbringer-the-history... -- a quick history of the action by Blizzard against the maker of an in-game bot, legally identical to running a private server. Note the claims were all either copyright-related, won by the bot-maker, or involved "tortious interference"--i.e. incentivizing the buyer of Glider to break their EULA with Blizzard, which would no longer exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it does not. He has a license for that media.
the key word here is "Media": The licensing terms for every medium that you purchase are different. You may own the CD and not have "download rights". In any case, this is the line from the RIAA. They don't want you to copy, download or do anything that causes them a perceived loss of a sale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me first state that I'm in basically total agreement with OP and mostly agree with parent, but one point sticks in my craw: >> The point is that this is my decision. >Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do? http://thegatheringplacehome.myfastforum.org/archive/life-le...…
> because the hen made the fucking bread, and the cow didn't Yes, we could say that work justifies payment (very simply and roughly). But that is not in dispute. It is that it does not justify payment by a particular means -- one that restricts the freedom (to copy etc.) of others. And -- you will forgive me if I am mistaken -- I am afraid inclusion of the word 'fucking' does not quite cover that. Does payment depend…
So treat Expressive works just like any other product, that can be bought, resold, copied, modifyed/hacked. Is that the logical conclusion of your position?
How do we (should we?) protect innovation? The patent system? the copyright system? Some other form of protection?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their "physical distribution" by means of a complex technological infrastructure involving microphones, amplifiers, speakers, lighting, electricity etc. etc., which, as you point out, "the artist didn't make," but which the artist wishes to leverage in order to make a greater profit. The argument of "well you didn't invent TCP/IP so you can't expect to make money distributing digital copies of your music" is the slip…
You keep confusing the two. If I take an microphone from you, you don't have an microphone. If I copy a song from you, you still have the song yourself. It might be that you don't see the difference but I do and therein is our disagreement.
No one's going to argue that consumers want to save money. They want quality products, but they don't want to pay too much for it. When did we get into the convention of charging 99 cents per song? That seems to be the standard cost these days from iTunes to Amazon. Why are most albums $14+? To cover the cost of recording, packaging, distribution, and all the bureaucratic middlemen-ing in the music industry? Consumers are de-incentivized to obtain their copy legally when they know that they can just get it for free. So why not meet both parties half-way? In the new era of online music distribution, artists don't need to heavily rely on agents or record companies to push their products. They just need an avid fanbase willing to make their content viral. Success would then be more dependent on quality as well than on connections and affiliation with big names in the industry, which have given us so many abhorrent "stars." Eliminate these expenses, and I believe artists can afford to charge under $5 or even $2 for a full-length album. This makes it much more palatable and economically feasible for fans to make legal purchases to more of their favorite bands. It will alleviate moral guilt by giving them an alternative to high-pricing and pirating. And even if they had downloaded it for free previously (to listen through and make sure they actually like the product), they can still reasonably buy the album again from the artist at a low cost. This is different from the Paypal donation system too as it will allow artists to retain rights to charge what they want for their product.
In a business sense this makes a lot of sense too. As Theodore Levitt has said, "The purpose of a business is to create and keep a customer. To do that you have to deliver goods and services that people want and value at prices that are attractive."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of the reason you are paid so much as a designer who works "for hire" either employed or as a freelancer is that your client wants something unique. Let's assume that there is no copyright. You get a contract from a client to design them a logo , website and smartphone app to promote their business. However your client knows that if a competitor wishes to copy their entire website including logo and app etc they…
Ever walked into a department store like Macy's? It's all ripoff from designers. There is no copyright on clothe design yet that hasn't killed the designer clothing market. Counterfeit goods to my knowledge fall under trademark laws.
Fashion is also a very visible way to display wealth whilst software is not, "aaah but was your copy of Office 2010 compiled by Steve Ballmer himself".. just doesn't happen.
If we got rid of software copyright what would actually happen would be that all commercial software would be moved into a SaaS model and companies would keep their servers and code under lock and key so that nobody could get physical access to it. This would probably give you less freedom rather than more.
Perhaps some movies would also be screened only at cinemas so that nobody ended up with a DVD that they could copy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I started making enough money to buy everything I was consuming, I put an end to my piracy habit for some time. I had Netflix, used Rhapsody (then Spotify), bought season passes on iTunes (I used iPlayer a couple times but being in the US I had to use Tor to get around the region filter to watch a Louis Theroux documentaries, I guess that's "piracy"). I stopped when I realized that while I could afford it, all o…
When I started making enough money to buy a car I put an end to my car stealing habit for some time. See how silly this sounds? The problem with digital media is that it's very easy to copy. You can't just copy a car. There are tons of website offering free music. So just support those artists instead of the ones charging too much for an inferior service.
> See how silly this sounds?
Yes, that completely hyperbolic, not analogous example sure does sound silly!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course people create cover versions of songs or re-use a good riff, there is always an element of copying ideas but I think this is different to completely ripping something off 100% since you must still create the rest of the body of work around the original idea. Of course you could argue how much imitation should be allowed before it is considered a copyright or patent violation.
But the argument is that it takes something away from the artiste. That it's not only like stealing but that it is actually stealing. So what is it? Is it taking something away from the original creator (and the creator before him/her) or is it not.
I would not equate copying necessarily with stealing but each copy that is made of your software/music whatever will dilute it's value to an extent unless there is some compensation. Commercial software hopes you will compensate by paying money, OSS hopes you will compensate by providing code or some other service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of me hopes that your vision becomes reality and all financially backed art falls apart.. just so you, ThomPete, can live in a world that shitty and know that this is what you wanted. Enjoy your cat videos.
Yeah, a totally shitty world with those crappy pre-copyright amateurs like Shakespeare and without the great art of Justin Bieber. The horror, the horror.
There were no cameras in those days if there was somebody would simply record the show and distribute it, I would imagine Shakespeare would want some of that action himself.